WASHINGTON, D.C., March 17, 2011 ( – For the past several weeks, Democrats on Capitol Hill have mounted a bitter showdown against GOP efforts to cut billions of spending in this year’s budget, making impassioned pleas to maintain current funding levels for everything from Social Security to the Cowboy Poetry Festival.


Nonetheless, their leader in the House has complained that defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court may cost too much money.

House Speaker John Boehner announced last week that Congress would shoulder the burden of defending the 1996 law after President Obama and the head of the Justice Department both announced they would shun protecting the measure as it faces a major legal challenge.

But in a letter to the GOP leader last Friday, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) objected that, because the House General Counsel would hire private lawyers to defend the law, House leaders should look into how much the extra help will cost the government.

“The General Counsel indicated that he lacked the personnel and the budget to absorb those substantial litigation duties. It is important that the House receive an estimate of the cost to taxpayers for engaging private lawyers to intervene in the pending DOMA cases,” wrote Pelosi, as quoted by the New York Times.

Thomas Peters, Cultural Director at the National Organization for Marriage and American Papist blogger, ridiculed Pelosi for having suddenly “‘got religion’ on the taxpayer expense of running government.”

“Does Pelosi seriously expect us to believe she is worried about the cost to taxpayers?” Peters said, suggesting that, “If Pelosi believed in defending marriage, she could afford the DOMA lawyers out of her own pocket.”


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.